Looking for clarification. Does the new Balance 310 do LACP NIC bonding? The compare tool says all the other 310 models do but it says NO for the base 310.
Looks like it doesn’t in the documentation. The new 310 has different internal hardware than the older models, That is on the LAN side, none of the Peplink devices support LACP on the WAN side (as far as I know, maybe something on the really high end stuff).
If you need 10GB LACP on the LAN side currently, you are best to go to the SDX or SDX Pro with the 4 port SFP+ module. With how cheap 10Gbit ethernet switches have gotten you are probably better off to just get a 5 or 8 port 10Gbit switch and do the LACP on that. With a router throughput of only 4Gbit you will never need more than a single 10Gbit connection from the switch to the router.
If you were wanting LACP for a WAN interface exceeding 2.5Gbit, there are 2 ways to easily do this. In my examples, I’ll assume a 4Gbit symmetric connection
1: Run 2x2.5Gbit connections both to 2 ports on the ISP box and set them both up as 1/2 the throughput (so on a 4Gbit symmetric just enter each as 2Gbit/2Gbit on the wan interface. Not an ideal setup.
2: Use a VWAN, tie up one of the 10Gbit connections and set it up as 4Gbit/4Gbit in the WAN settings. It would be the better setup and leaves both physical WANs free for secondary connections.
If you actually have a connection exceeding 4Gbit combined up and down do consider a higher throughput model (580X HW2 probably). If it’s something odd like 3Gbit/500Mbit asymmetrical, the second example will work okay assuming any other connections are backups, not load balancing, but you are close to the 310’s limits.
2 Likes
@kovlin Hi and thanks so much for the response. At 10GB I wasn’t really thinking about bonding for any throughput changes but more for the redundancy on the ports themselves. I actually have a 10GB switch so I was wondering if I could LACP them together which is why I asked… really just a design thing I was planning out.
I’ve seen the same inconsistency in the compare tool before, and it usually comes down to either a spec mismatch between SKU tiers or a documentation/feature matrix not being fully updated yet.
In a lot of networking appliances, LACP NIC bonding is sometimes reserved for higher-tier variants or enabled via firmware/licensing, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the base 310 shows “NO” while the other 310 models include it. That said, I’d still double-check the official datasheet or reach out to support to confirm—compare tools aren’t always reliable for these edge cases.
If you’re also exploring naming/tools/resources around setups like this, you can check generate name here for quick name ideas and utilities.
Might be worth verifying before deciding, especially if bonding is a must-have for your deployment.
1 Like
That’s a solid breakdown of the hardware differences. Often these entry-level models skip LACP to focus on throughput efficiency for standard deployments. If you’re not pushing high-density traffic internally, the single interface usually holds up fine for most use cases.